This morning the BBC filled the airwaves with tall tales about Tory Grant Shapps and Wikipedia edits.
The BBC told us that the administrator who had made the claims about Shapps had said that he ‘couldn’t be sure who had edited the account’….so the question is did the BBC know the identity of that administrator and if so why did they not report it? Was the story about Shapps just too good to put a stop to?
The Telegraph reports that the administrator at Wikipedia was in fact a LibDem activist…
Wikipedia administrator who accused Grant Shapps of editing pages of Tory rivals is Liberal Democrat activist
The Wikipedia administrator who accused the Tory co-chairman, Grant Shapps, of creating a fake identity on the online encyclopedia to boost his reputation is a leading activist in the Liberal Democrats, the Telegraph can reveal.
Richard Symonds admitted today that he had been “chastised” by other administrators at Wikipedia for not checking with more people before banning a user who he claims is Mr Shapps, or someone working for him.
Mr Symonds also admitted that he had briefed The Guardian newspaper, which broke the alleged story yesterday.
No mention of the identity of this administrator in the Guardian story, nor of his inability to actually provide any evidence that linked Shapps to the edits….so where did the BBC get their quote from about his lack of evidence? Did they contact him personally?
After spending the day slinging mud at Shapps, and he was also interrogated on Newsnight last night so important is this story, the BBC hasn’t bothered to update the story with the rather significant fact that it looks like a bit of LibDem skulduggery at work.
Funny how much time the BBC spends on a story when it seems to suit their bias, as with the ‘Jihadi Bride’s father, and then can suddenly lose all interest when the truth comes out and contradicts their quality journalism…and never a sign of an apology or a rowback from them….they’ve already managed to imprint people’s minds with the BBC version and they know that may well stick however much ‘truth’ comes out later. All very Goebbels-like.
I’m sure Nick Clegg will be rewritng his jokes now…
Asked about the claims, Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg said he was “prepared to believe” that Mr Shapps had not altered his Wikipedia entry but joked: “It just could have been someone else – Michael Green, for instance.”
“As the vilest Writer has his Readers, so the greatest Liar has his Believers; and it often happens, that if a Lie be believ’d only for an Hour, it has done its Work, and there is no farther occasion for it.
“Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it; so that when Men come to be undeceiv’d, it is too late; the Jest is over, and the Tale has had its Effect…
Jonathan Swift writing in 1710
Anyone who followed the saga of the Green lunatics gaming Wikipedia in the past to reflect the beliefs of their ersatz religion won’t be surprised by this story.
Wikipedia is an unreliable source of information. Something it has in common with the BBC.
“How the BBC’s ‘impartial’ professor of journalism ‘improved’ his rival’s Wikipedia biography”
(2010).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1243836/How-BBCs-professor-journalism-improved-rivals-biography.html
Damage done. Conservatives successfully smeared. So the Guardian and the BBC simply move on without issuing corrections to their story.
The Guardian obviously knew what their sources were, and as they appeared to be writing the story in conjunction with the BBC, presumably the BBC knew what the sources were and how unreliable and obviously bias they were – or more accurately “he was”, i.e. a single Liberal Democrat senior activist.
Astonishing that ex-BBC man Crick, now working for Channel 4 covered this story on C4 News this evening, without once mentioning the Lib Dem dimension that has been known all day….nor that Symonds is now away from work, ‘sick’.
On the face of it, it’s very Alinskyite practises. The issue is not the issue and all that. Only champion an issue for as long as it furthers the agenda, then drop it and move on to something else. Which organisations, I wonder, would resort to such underhand behaviour.
JiC. Yes, very true.
Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals.
(Just in case anyone was wondering. )
The left are SO much better at this sort of stuff than the right, who are disadvantaged by their individualistic tendencies. (have I said that right?)
Wikipedia is used to promote political agendas. Have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:UK_Independence_Party#Domestic_-_health_policy for a flavour of how people try push their own slant.
Anyone reading this can join in and edit wikipedia.
If I was Wikipedia, I’d be very worried about a reputation in dire danger of reaching the depths of the BBC.
If wikipedia is bad it is because good people don’t participate.
Did the DT not report recently on Labours “Barack” having his entry edited by someone using a computer from his workplace.
Can anyone link?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9987374/Chuka-Umunnas-Wikipedia-entry-edited-from-computer-at-his-work.html
Seems much hinges on that odd insitutional Alzheimer’s that often afflicts BBC senior staff on a selective basis.
Or maybe it was just a ‘cock up’?
“Chuka has no record or recollection of having a log in for Wikipedia or having edited it, though staff have had to make corrections for racist vandalism of the page in the past.”
Quickly sidestepped, then back on the offensive.
Every wiki page has a ‘history’ page attached which lists the user editing and a brief summary of the edit. I can’t see any obvious change that involves ‘racist vandalism’, funnily enough.
When all its work is done, the lie shall rot;
The truth is great, and shall prevail,
When none cares whether it prevail or not.
Coventry Patmore
Truth’s a chiel tha’ winnae die
And cannae be disputed
Burns
If only that was true. The truth needs to be spoken.